It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

page: 7
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux

...at the low price of the surrender of your critical faculties... (paraphrasing Hitchens)


Haha.




posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackaspirin

originally posted by: FyreByrd

The facade may have been aluminum - but that is irrelevant to the question addressed by the video.

Please don't stray from the topic.



I don't see how that's off-topic. If someone makes an argument regarding molten steel, whether for or against - it's completely relevant to point out that the molten metal did not have to be steel in the first place, and point out the far greater likelihood of it being molten aluminum.

Pointing out the faulty premise, which is on-topic in any argument.


The thread is not about molten steel.

It is about the integrity of structural steel. Specifically that such steel doesn't have to be hot enought to melt to lose it's structural integrity.

Isn't reading comprehension taught in schools any longer ...



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

originally posted by: blackaspirin

Conversely, what is the 'controlled demolition' explanation for why the 2nd tower to be hit collapsed first? The demolition team forgot which building they were supposed to blow up first, and hit the wrong button?


Because #2 was further away from #7.

Personnel in #7 OEM bunker put the finishing touches on the explosive systems in the Twin Towers, which one would you bring down first; the dangerously close #1 Tower or the safely distant #2 Tower?

Then exited #7 to prepare for the next demolition of the #1 Tower and #7 from a secondary location (The new command center location that they had setup for the simulated terrorist attack operation).

Fraud.


Please - please remain on topic. This thread has nothing to do with anything other then the point at which structural steel loses it's integrity.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: putnam6
Video below sounds plausible or people are still being let into the conspiracy of a demolition collapse? and producing videos and studies etc to hide this fact. Also just because people believe the buildings could have collapsed without explosives,it doesn't mean other aspects of 911 conspiracies are totally false. WTC 7 is a huge question mark, gonna research and see if there are studies or videos explaining just that aspect. Everything gets convoluted when its all thrown together. As mentioned here on this thread that means the whole WTC 7 was wired for demolition when? at construction seems the most logical, if done after occupation it would take an extraordinary effort,with a lot people to be sworn to silence, not saying it isn't possible but its certainly not the most probable explanation. Its 16 years later so much chaff has been out there from all camps finding the whole truth might be impossible. It's so complex and hell this nation still doesn't know the truth behind JFK or if was just LHO the majority don't believe it.




Not relevant -



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chadwickus
a reply to: FyreByrd

Hey, it has been posted before, the thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It doesn't matter though, the thread gets turned into the same old arguments.

It is a good video though.


Thank you!



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: putnam6
a reply to: samkent

Obviously this is purely hypothetical , and wasn't the 3 trillion supposedly found out later as an accounting error as the highest magnitude( still skeptical about that bit thats is one story I read . But the 3 trillion wouldn't missing at once if it did happen it could have been siphoned off over a period of time, that said its also getting off topic. Which is extremely difficult not to do when discussing 911.

I don't know what caused the total collapse but there is more than just pseudo science theories backing up WTC 7 collapse due to damage and uncontrolled fires out there. Like this one below....again I'm not convinced either way but it seems theoretically possible. And again it doesn't mean if true that there wasn't some other BS going on. Have no doubt people probably knew ahead of time and used the knowledge to their advantage to manipulate and even for financial gain.



Completely off-topic - start your own thread - don't hijack mine. Please.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackaspirin

originally posted by: xdriver14

2 similar materials will deform and destruct at the same rate. Less material above than below means it can not crush it to the ground.

I can not fathom how you don't get this. The crushing of a lower floor by the floor above it will consume 1 floor above and below. There were insufficient floors above the damage to destroy all the floor below.


Look up static load vs. dynamic load.

At the moment of failure, the upper floors dropped through the impact point on to the lower floors. This is no longer the WEIGHT of the upper floors vs. the stability of the lower floors. It is now a dynamic load, not a static one.

If you don't understand, imagine resting a concrete block on your head. You can do that, right? Now, imagine someone dropping it from 6 inches above your head. Then imagine someone dropping it from a foot above your head.

Are all of those scenarios the same amount of FORCE on your head? HELL NO. Yeah, the weight of the concrete block is the same in all three instances, but the FORCE is vastly different. I encourage you NOT to try the latter two examples - they will do far more damage to your head than the first.

This is what you fail to understand. If I am not convincing enough, because you and I are both laypersons - I again challenge you to go to the nearest university and find a physics teacher. Show them our dialogue, and see what they have to say.



originally posted by: xdriver14The tree analogy works perfectly. The material above and below is the same. Trying to stay civil under the stress of trying to explain simple physics. Let's talk collision physics. Imagine you had 2 model train cars set up on a track and you are going to collide them together. Each car is exactly the same weight but made of cement. Just for clarity only 1 car is in motion the other stopped by something immovable. You will see that both train cars are equally damaged. Same forces on each.
Now make the non moving train car twice a 's large and leave the moving car the same weight. The smaller train car will disintegrate and leave the non moving car shorter but still but still there.


Two words - waterjet cutter. You clearly do not understand what you're talking about. Don't take my word for it (I know you won't), go talk to some physics teachers and try to learn something. Posting on conspiracy message boards, where others pat you on the back and tell you how right you are...is why you still don't understand after 16 years.


2 minute search yielded experiments like I described. Please watch and comment
youtu.be...



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 05:53 PM
link   
a reply to: xdriver14

Ignorant video, especially the hammer stopped by a nail. I used to be able to drive a nail with one strike. A nail gun drives a nail in with one strike, is that magic law defying physics?

I sink nails in one hit. 10-3" nails in a 1-1/2" board with 1 hit in 48 seconds.
m.youtube.com...

The dynamic falling load was on a magnitude great enough to the rated load capacity of tower floor connections the resistance was marginal. The falling mass was so great it can be compared to an nail gun driving a nail with one blow. And that mass increased floor by failed floor.


edit on 16-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

You have made a thread without looking and taking into account the evidence.


Building Seven Collapsed Too you know .

Please could you explain how Jet did this...

Could you explain to me how a normal fire did this..

I smell a fish.

Wish you could vote misleading threads down..







posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: xdriver14

2 minute search yielded experiments like I described. Please watch and comment
youtu.be...


Right after I recommend that you go talk to a real physicist instead of watching YouTube videos, you send me - A YOUTUBE VIDEO. You simply want to be told you're correct, instead of going through the trouble of understanding what you're talking about. Don't take my word for it - go talk to a real physicist.

Here's a further resource, explaining the difference between static load vs. dynamic load, and further illustrates that a skyscraper is not like a tree. Pay attention to the following:

"Even though the lower undamaged structure was designed to be able to handle the upper damaged 18 stories, this is only true in a static sense. Once the loads became dynamic (due to gravity), the dynamic loads had already far exceeded the structural design limit and the failure had to propagate until all the energy is dissipated. This is true for nearly every structure in existence, and certainly true for every skyscraper: once progressive collapse begins, it can't be stopped because the supporting structure below cannot handle the many multiplications of the load it was designed to support. It's erroneous to think of a skyscraper as a solid column of material that's able to stop falling objects. In reality a skyscraper is more like a skeletal structure with thousands of interconnected supporting members. The loss of too many members/supports will cause failure. A giant mass falling through the center of the skeleton will only knock more of the structure away, further propagating the collapse.

www.reddit.com...
edit on 16-9-2017 by blackaspirin because: Added italics



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: purplemer

What evidence do you have is was not fire.

Think about the fire never before collapse of a high rise.

One, there has been a high rise building collapse since 9/11.


Tehran high-rise collapses after catching fire, killing 30 firefighters
www.thenational.ae...


Two, no evidence of detonations powerful enough to cut steel. Therefore Gage and Jones forced into concocting fizzle no flash / thermite theories. So there goes the " looks" like a conventional CD.

Three, take the towers. Cite an example of a top down demolitions CD of a high rise. Also, there has never been a demolitions CD implosion of a building over 47 floors. Again, there goes the "looks" like a conventional CD.

Four, there has never been an a high rise CD by thermite.

For the truth movement theories to be true:

The first successful CD implosion of buildings over 47 stories twice in one day.

The first successful top down demolitions CD of a high rise building twice in one day.

The first thermite CD of high rise building three times in one day.

All those first for CD on 9/11 vs fire collapse? With a fire collapse since 9/11.


edit on 16-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed more



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 06:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: xdriver14

Ignorant video, especially the hammer stopped by a nail. I used to be able to drive a nail with one strike. A nail gun drives a nail in with one strike, is that magic law defying physics?

I sink nails in one hit. 10-3" nails in a 1-1/2" board with 1 hit in 48 seconds.
m.youtube.com...

The dynamic falling load was on a magnitude great enough to the rated load capacity of tower floor connections the resistance was marginal. The falling mass was so great it can be compared to an nail gun driving a nail with one blow. And that mass increased floor by failed floor.

your concept of physics is flawed. The mass will reduce all the way down see any of that dust and debris coming out. The top part only fell a few feet before it hit the bottom part.
Not to mention but how did the support fail so evenly, damage to one side from impact, perhaps fire was evenly distributed but not likely. Your hammer and nail analogy is also flawed. The hammer is many times the mass of the nail. Try it the other way around and see what happens. Hit the hammer with the nail and see how far it moves. You have it completely backwards. Please quit while you are behind.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: blackaspirin

originally posted by: kyleplatinum

Because #2 was further away from #7.

Personnel in #7 OEM bunker put the finishing touches on the explosive systems in the Twin Towers, which one would you bring down first; the dangerously close #1 Tower or the safely distant #2 Tower?

Then exited #7 to prepare for the next demolition of the #1 Tower and #7 from a secondary location (The new command center location that they had setup for the simulated terrorist attack operation).

Fraud.

There was a lot less mass above the damage than below.the little part can't crush the bigger part.

I guess it's unfortunate for you that basic physics (greater mass above a weakened point) explains it without resorting to assuming secret 'explosive systems' and a multitude of people who would need to be involved.

The basic physics explanation is already supported by the available evidence. Theories about secret teams of people and secret explosive methods are not.

Occam's Razor.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Dwoodward85




the beams that were used in the towers would've been very VERY thick and held together with other beams

Your assumptions are incorrect.
That's been the problem with the conspiracy side. They assume it was beam to beam construction on wtc.

It was not beam on beam.
It was inner core and exterior lattice BRACED with cheap floor trusses.
The trusses used 1 inch steel rod between the upper and lower mounts.
Take out enough floor trusses and the exterior becomes flexible.

Look at your local Walmart roof trusses.
That is essentially the exact type and size floor trusses used in wtc.


Why did the central columns come down then, if what you say is true the floors would have collapsed but the columns would have remained straight and tall.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: xdriver14

Why did the central columns come down then, if what you say is true the floors would have collapsed but the columns would have remained straight and tall.


The floors are what held the columns straight and tall. Without the floors the columns buckle and fall.
edit on 16-9-2017 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: xdriver14

The core columns were constructed by welding short(ish) sections on top of each other and the strength of the welds is questionable. Without the floors bracing the core to the outer walls, the columns swayed around until the welds snapped but a significant amount of the core did manage to remain standing at the lower levels (the 'spires')

This pic shows the depth of the welds on those column sections


A good quality weld is typically as strong as, or stronger than the material being welded but that's not the case here.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: xdriver14

The steel and anything of mass will try to fall stright down. Baring collisions like a Newton's cradle. That is what gravity does, it exerts a force that tries to pull objects straight to the center of the earth.

It's doesn't matter on the tower where the 29 floors fell. The connections for the first floor below was only rated for the weight equivalent to 12 tower floors.





Static v. Dynamic Loading:
Why the WTC Towers Fell So Fast

www.burtonsys.com...

So you can see that the two factors which slowed the fall of the WTC towers were both very small. The strength of the structure below the point of collapse could be expected to slow the rate of collapse by less than 1%, and the accumulation of additional mass by the falling part of the structure due to the the "pancaking" of the lower floors could be expected to slow the rate of collapse by about 3%.

Of course, the above analysis is just about what happened when the top 31 stories fell onto the 79th floor. To predict the progression of the entire collapse, you have to repeat the calculations for each floor. For the next floor, calculate a 32-story building starting with an initial velocity of about 18.4 mph, and accelerating for another 12.4 feet to about 27 mph, and then slamming into the 78th floor. Since kinetic energy is proportional to velocity squared, the falling mass hits the 78th floor with about twice the kinetic energy that the top 31 stories had when they hit the 79th floor. Obviously, the 78th floor could be expected to slow the collapse by even less than the 79th floor did, which is why the building collapsed at nearly free-fall speed.


The quick thumb rule is a dynamic load will exert twice the force( weight) of a static load of the same mass.

The 12 floors falling on the other tower was of sufficient forces to break floor connections with enough force to compare it to drinking a nail into a board with one blow.

Your thought process is flawed and not based on fact.

edit on 16-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: xdriver14

Why did the central columns come down then, if what you say is true the floors would have collapsed but the columns would have remained straight and tall.


The floors are what held the columns straight and tall. Without the floors the columns buckle and fall.


Not only that, for years here at ATS I have been talking about the design specifications for the buildings.

A building such as the World Trade Ceter towers are built with a tube truss design. This design entails that the structure will stand tall and handle all that entails through the design specifications. When these specifications have been exceeded structural compromise can and will take hold.

The towers were designed to support the structure with a horizontal load and the viscoelastic dampers that connect the trusses to the core support columns and the outer skeleton structure allow for a slight swaying due to wind.

Once the movement of the building including each and every component holding the building together exceeds the design specifications, this allows the connections and structural integrity to be compromised.

A building is nothing more tham thousands if not millions of connections and parts that all have to operate writhing their design specifications to support the structural integrity.

Factors such as maximum load ability, shear strength, compressive capabilities, and heat that factors the atomic structure of the steel all has to be taken into consideration to determin if the design specifications has been exceeded.

Been saying it for over ten damn years.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: xdriver14

You don't get kinetic energy is proportional to velocity squared!

Quote where I said the falling mass sheared vertical columns. The falling 29 floors sheared at most the mass equivalent of one floor's connections to vertical columns.
edit on 16-9-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed and added



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: xdriver14

The steel and anything of mass will try to fall stright down. Baring collisions like a Newton's cradle. That is what gravity does, it exerts a force that tries to pull objects straight to the center of the earth.

It's doesn't matter on the tower where the 29 floors fell. The connections for the first floor below was only rated for the weight equivalent to 12 tower floors.


^^^EXACTLY.

He doesn't realize that when it fails, it is all of the upper floors crashing down on the next floor - which is not built to sustain the DYNAMIC LOAD (not static load) of all the upper floors.

The combined weight of all the upper floors, and the force that they accumulate when they drop through the impact zone onto the next lower floor - is ENORMOUS. Far too enormous for the next floor in succession to even remotely slow them down.

So if you start with 31 floors, crashing down on the next floor - they crush it, and now you have the dynamic load of 32 floors crashing down on the next one. That one gets crushed, and you have the dynamic load of 33 floors crashing down on the next one, and the process continues all the way down.

If the very first floor to be hit with the dynamic load of all the upper floors cannot sustain that force, then it's game over. The next floor in line will do no better, and so on. The force keeps accumulating, and there is nothing strong enough to withstand it.

But I'm not a YouTube video with spooky music and sinister overtones, so screw what I have to say!

edit on 16-9-2017 by blackaspirin because: Added quote from previous post for clarity

edit on 16-9-2017 by blackaspirin because: format



new topics




 
23
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join